I dont know how they came to the conclusion that there was intent, which led to the charges being raised to 2nd degree murder, but as much as I want
to feel bad for an officer going to jail with no chance of parole, I know a young man died by his hand.

I'm glad he is being held accountable for his actions, this should happen more often, the very fact this is the first officer charged in the history
of the force smells fishy to me. In my oppinion, I see too many innocent people dieing from police conduct, or 'jumping the gun' and killing someone
out of fear. An officer is volunteering to put himself/herself in the line of duty, there are risks, and I hope these charges will make police think
twice where they aim before they pull that trigger. I'm celebrating what looks like actual justice, and remembering the cops who walk free all over
canada and america who have killed innocent people scott free, oh sorry, with a paid vactation.

It was the first officer ever charged with murder while on duty (Big difference between negligence in a death or kind of manslaughter). Murder implies
there was major intent to kill someone. Not accidental, not so much heat of the moment, more like, it was a conscience choice to do it.

Plenty have been charged, just not for murder.

He is facing 2nd degree, which before I believe was a minimum 10 to life sentence. In Canada, people with life sentences are eligible for parole after
a certain time, but must remain on parole for their entire lives.

Also, I believe the upgrade to murder charge had something to do with the victim being shot in the back.

The same force is still recovering from the
PR Nightmare they had
a few years ago.

The charge has the police union questioning the very justice system the officers enforce".

Hilarious, somehow they think the justice system gives them rights to use excessive force and kill somebody but when they get the same treatment as
everybody else they have a cry.

Congratulations Canada on setting a brilliant example for the entire western world.

If this was to happen in America, 90% of the force would be in Jail.
Enforcing bogus laws like drug possession needs violence because there is no moral or logic behind the reason. That is why we should not allow our
governments to fight this unjust war on drugs, which I believe to be a big part of the problem in police brutality.

Right at the end of the video it says that he is actually the second officer to be charged with murder, but the first officer was actually
acquitted in 1998.

Horrible story you shared there, I sometimes forget these things happen in Toronto, since I am usually hearing these stories from south of the border.
In terms of intent, I would hope an officer is trained to know where to shoot in any given circumstance, although I cant say I can understand the
pressure one must be under. I think for this case to be making it so far, they must have proof he could have made a better decision, and chose to
shoot where he did. Who knows. I personally like to think he didnt actually want to kill the dude.

I dont know how they came to the conclusion that there was intent, which led to the charges being raised to 2nd degree murder, but as much as I want
to feel bad for an officer going to jail with no chance of parole, I know a young man died by his hand.

Well, here is how wikipedia draws the distinction between the 2.... "The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on
the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of
mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand,
requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation."

...And here is a little bit from the Op's post...."Eric Osawe, 26, died from a Toronto police officer’s bullet to the back two years ago, the
lawyer for the victim’s family says."

If you can't do the math on that one yourself...well I don't think any amount of explaining will help.

I'm not defending the police, there just is not enough information available in the articles to prove that it could have happened by accident. I'm
guessing the crown does in fact have evidence that proves the officer could have behaved differently. I dont think he woke up that day itching to kill
the victim, I'm sure he didnt pre-meditate where and how he would do it, what he did do, was shoot without thinking about the consequences- since
until now, there have been no consequences. Like I mentioned in the original post, police take risks, its their jobs, I'd rather see one officer go
down in the line of duty, than 30 innocent people shot because a cop was afraid. Like a police spokesman said in one of the articles/videos "I hope
this doesnt make officers think twice possibly putting themselves or the pulbic at risk" - No, I hope they do think twice!

Here in Canada, much of the details are held secret till trial....
Everything usually comes ouut in court, but there are cases where the public is not allowed into the picture....
They charged this one guy with murder (reluctantly)
What about the mental abuse and turture that the Canadian cops regularly use on their most disliked prisoners.

Originally posted by el1jah
I'm not defending the police, there just is not enough information available in the articles to prove that it could have happened by accident. I'm
guessing the crown does in fact have evidence that proves the officer could have behaved differently. I dont think he woke up that day itching to kill
the victim, I'm sure he didnt pre-meditate where and how he would do it, what he did do, was shoot without thinking about the consequences- since
until now, there have been no consequences. Like I mentioned in the original post, police take risks, its their jobs, I'd rather see one officer go
down in the line of duty, than 30 innocent people shot because a cop was afraid. Like a police spokesman said in one of the articles/videos "I hope
this doesnt make officers think twice possibly putting themselves or the pulbic at risk" - No, I hope they do think twice!

Thank you for making that a little clearer to me. Now I think I can explain it to you. If I threw a telivision out of my window because I didn't want
it anymore and it landed on you and killed you, AND I didn't know you were beneath my window, that would be an accident. I would likely still be
charged with INVOLUNTARY manslaughter. " Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either
express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories;
constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter." Obviously I shouldn't be doing things like that because it is just plain
dangerous.

If we got into a heated argument and I punched you and you fell down, smashing your head on a curb, which resulted in your death, I obviously never
meant to kill you but I took deliberate action which resulted in your death. Thus I would likely be charged with VOLUNTARY manslaughter. "Voluntary
manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating
circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some
jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various
jurisdictions."

Murder is of course a little more deliberate. 1st degree would be of course something like waking up with the intent to kill, waiting in ambush for
the victim and then doing the deed. 2nd degree murder would be say...SHOOTING YOU IN THE BACK WHILE YOU RAN AWAY!!! The cop likely didn't even know
who his victim was when he woke up that morning. But you gotta admit... shooting someone in the back is obviously a threat to that persons life and
cannot be considered anything but an unnecessary act of malicious intent.

I hope that I am not mistaken in any of my examples or explanation, and I hope it is helpfull to you.
: )

Minimum life in prison. Not eligible for parole for 10 years? You freaking kidding me here? Shouldn't a life sentence be..... a life
sentence? Need to look into a bit more than that first video but damn.

How on Earth was this premeditated? If a cop gets a call to a situation, arrives and then shoots someone I just don't see it as being premeditated.
Again reading more.

No worries dude. I initially thought you weren't taking the cop's actions as seriously as you should, but it of course turned out to be a small
misunderstanding of the difference between manslaughter and murder. Easy enough to do. I had to look the two up while typing the whole thing out just
to make sure I didn't screw it up. Glad to help.

Minimum life in prison. Not eligible for parole for 10 years? You freaking kidding me here? Shouldn't a life sentence be..... a life
sentence? Need to look into a bit more than that first video but damn.

How on Earth was this premeditated? If a cop gets a call to a situation, arrives and then shoots someone I just don't see it as being premeditated.
Again reading more.

edit on 24-2-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

First degree is premeditated, this was 2nd degree, so basically killing on purpose.

There was a cop who was fired a couple of weeks ago, for manhandling a somewhat disabled man out of a building, just for going through the wrong door.
The man was deaf, and mute with a breathing tube, that was knocked out.

It used to be that they got away with everything, suspended with pay, or a desk job, or just relocated. Even after killing someone.
Maybe they're going to clean up the corrupted cops a little? It would be about time...

Originally posted by el1jah
I'm not defending the police, there just is not enough information available in the articles to prove that it could have happened by accident. I'm
guessing the crown does in fact have evidence that proves the officer could have behaved differently. I dont think he woke up that day itching to kill
the victim, I'm sure he didnt pre-meditate where and how he would do it, what he did do, was shoot without thinking about the consequences- since
until now, there have been no consequences. Like I mentioned in the original post, police take risks, its their jobs, I'd rather see one officer go
down in the line of duty, than 30 innocent people shot because a cop was afraid. Like a police spokesman said in one of the articles/videos "I hope
this doesnt make officers think twice possibly putting themselves or the pulbic at risk" - No, I hope they do think twice!

Its this. In a struggle, or doing something risky, ie, smashing your car in the side of a building, the gun may go off, you might save your own life
in the struggle by firing. Or with the car, when this happened you killed a child, but you didn't intend to kill the child, but you were reckless.
Of course different if you had a stroke, but then again, different if you were at risk for having a stroke and drove anyway, there are shades and
levels of endangerment, recklessness, self defense, and accidents. There are all kinds of laws and definitions that cover these things.

But, at the exact moment someone is fleeing away, with their back to you, you are not in immediate danger, so shooting him to stop his flight is
murder, and conscious.

What he should have done is called in back up, giving a description of the person and location, and pursued.

I wonder where this pressure is comming from, I mean, the g20 was a parade of police misconduct, the official response on the false arrests,
unwarranted searches and so on was 'a miscommunication with the police' - please. I know that durring the occupy movement, Toronto Police behaved
much better than they did at the g20, and better than our southern neighbours treated protesters, and Bill Blaire was the chief for both incidents.

I'm glad the hammer is comming down on cops. If only the plans dictated by the Omnibus bill and Harpers Privitized prison's could be overturned
(mind you the conservatives have been looking to make mega prisons since Mike Harris' day)

- In other news, the conservatives have been (potentially) caught red handed with the robo-call scams they 'knew nothing about'

A Conservative staffer has resigned following reports that Elections Canada is investigating fake election day phone calls used to keep voters
away from polls. Michael Sona, who until Friday was a staffer in Conservative MP Eve Adams's office, also worked for Conservative candidate Marty
Burke in Guelph, Ont. Voters in that riding complained they were the target of automated robocalls claiming to be on behalf of Elections Canada that
directed them to the wrong polling station. Telling voters to go to the wrong or non-existent polling stations is a voter suppression tactic and
illegal under the Elections Act

I dont know badook about laws to be honest, I'm a 'rather be killed, than be a killer' sort of person as strange as that may seem. I dont know how
anyone could go into law enforcement, especially with the knowledge available to the masses regarding our governments motives, basically you sign up
to be the strong arm of corruption.

Rant - There is a real duty as a human to protect another, to act in service, to help- I'm sure there are police who believe this is their primary
motive- but more and more the common citizen is told to step aside and let the authority take on that human role- And the result is a world where we
walk by the homeless, we ignore the injured, we turn our face away from the wars our countries wage.

They want us to forget citizens ARE society, not just a member of the dictated idea of what society should look like.

Minimum life in prison. Not eligible for parole for 10 years? You freaking kidding me here? Shouldn't a life sentence be..... a life
sentence? Need to look into a bit more than that first video but damn.

How on Earth was this premeditated? If a cop gets a call to a situation, arrives and then shoots someone I just don't see it as being premeditated.
Again reading more.

edit on 24-2-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

Well hold on. I believe (not entirely sure) for 2nd degree the shortest can be 10 years. (It may have changed) but I've only seen those handed out to
young people.

A 2nd degree sentence could be anywhere from 10-25 to life. So the minimum to serve would be anywhere from 10-25. Just so you know, 10 year sentences
are not that common. What is common though, is people staying long past their eligibility.

So 10 years and they are eligible for parole. It does not mean they will get it! Some will spend many, many more years locked up than when they are
scheduled for review.

Life is still a life sentence. If those people want to be released, they have to convince the correctional system and the parole board they are no
longer a threat. And that's not easy for a lot of them.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.